inspect_blend

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool inspects/describes, implying read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, describe the output format, or mention any side effects or limitations such as output size or performance. This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's full behavioral profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized: a one-sentence summary followed by bulleted parameter explanations. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameters well. However, it lacks context about what the 'describe' output looks like (though there is no output schema to rely on), and it does not explain the difference between 'live' and 'headless' targets or how this tool relates to siblings like 'blender_status' or 'open_in_live_session'. This leaves room for improvement.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning to the parameters. It does this effectively for all three: blend_file ('Inspect this file. Leave empty to inspect the live session instead.'), include_objects ('Include the per-object breakdown, not just the counts.'), and target ('Where to look when no file is given.'). However, target's enum values (auto/live/headless) are not further explained, which is a minor gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('a scene'), enumerating the content areas (objects, transforms, materials, cameras, lights, render settings). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'blender_status' or 'render', which have different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context through the parameter explanations (e.g., 'Leave empty to inspect the live session instead') but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or state when to prefer this over alternatives. There is clear context for the 'target' and 'blend_file' parameters, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.